Partners

02/05/2012

Let's pretend for a minute that Jurgen Habermas' view of an ideal political-public sphere exists. I say 'pretend' because, well, there's still quite a bit of debate as to whether a space exists where individuals can discuss affairs of politics, business or anything. If we're defining rational-critical discourse mainly by its structural difference from discourse monopolized by the state, that seems to imply there's an ideal area where private citizens can converse outside the direct power of the state (Habermas' private homes, the salons of the private citizen, and so on).

It's obviously a stretch to assume the actions of the Court and the Church had no direct influence on the discussions of private citizens - England loved to issue censorship rule after censorship rule precisely because they had influence over these kinds of citizen communications. For quite some time, very little printed or discussed matter passed by eyes or ears in London or Paris without the tacit consent of the crown. It's good to be the King.

There seems to be some legitimacy here. Let's break out our 'Public Sphere Checklist' and see how the social networks of 2011 stack up against Habermas' two most important public sphere requirements: Equality and Inclusivity.

Equality of Status and Inclusivity

On the face of it, social networks make people equal. But let's look a little bit more. Much like the social clubs Habermas waxes poetic over, social networks come with hidden and not-so-hidden requirements for entry.

Owning a computer may not be a notable achievement for most Americans, but what about countries where Internet cafés are the dominant form of access? Given most of the world works all day to achieve some brief respite from misery, the majority of the developing world spends most of their time excluded from the conversation. Consistent, dense social networks like those of Egypt are generally due factors outside the natural allure of social networks, mainly an already wealthy state with educated citizens. Keep in mind, Egypt sat on a fence until lawyers, engineers and young, jobless professionals with personal Internet connections joined in.

Not only is most of the world excluded from participation in the Web's marketplace of ideas, few movements attract much attention even if they take the serious risks of getting online. The megaphone of social media is given to few, your Kutchers and assorted lesser Kardashians in the developed world key among them.

Look at how Libyans struggled to connect even their own unhappy population before NATO shored up Internet infrastructure by bombing the ever-loving hell out of troops advancing on Libya's major arteries of inbound and outbound communication.

For the majority of the world, gaining basic access to reliable Internet is a significant hardship. Even then, being included in the elite group of "those who are heard" is harder still. Are you rallying for the patriots of the Burmese Civil War? Check midway through the New York Times, behind an article about Newt Gingrich's "family values." They even have a Facebook page, with all of 9,000 supporters. All else being equal, it simply isn't.

So What is the Internet, Then?

There's no doubting the Internet is a communications revolution, but it's certainly not a coherent public sphere. By its sheer size and global reach alone, it's most likely impossible for even a dominant plurality of "the Internet" to be talking about any one thing at once. Before we pray at the altar of the Internet-as-democratic-commons, let's stop and think about how we actually use the product. Let's play an honesty game. I'll even let you self censor, but only if you're looking at porn:

When you finish reading this article, list all of your currently open browser tabs. How many do you have? Are you even internally thinking about one thing at a time on the Internet? How many of your open tabs involve talking with other people on a topic as opposed to merely reading an article or conducting a search?

Let's be honest and see what comes out. I'm willing to bet the submissions will vary, that no one topic will find a majority of all users even within the same graduate program, within the same 50-mile area focusing on mainly the same subjects. And in one of the great shames of our generation, my most recent tab is the trailer for Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie. Yeah, I know, Burma.

04/04/2011

Digital workplaces bring with them the promise of an ever-expanding pool of potentially employable workers. An employee free to move about the country and maximize their purchasing power thanks to an entirely-virtual workplace need not fear expensive metropolitan areas or the crime, crowding and chaos big cities often develop.

I am an advocate of telecommuting and virtual workplaces, not only because many of the positions I've held in the past have been made available exclusively through telecommuting. The benefits of virtual workplaces over brick-and-mortar establishments seem clear enough upon even cursory inspection: Employers can pull from a much larger pool of potential workers, virtual workplaces create a natural need for collaboration and communication between levels of a company, reductions in commuting time lead not only to fewer traffic jam-related headaches, but also to an overall greener workplace.

Be that as it may, there are also major ethical dilemmas unique to virtual workplaces. The division of employee and employer creates major questions related to true productivity, employee honesty, and the proper division of labor among members of a virtual group. The technological boundaries to virtual work are by and large behind us, and even boutique companies can make use of free-to-use virtual worlds like OpenSim and Second Life for meeting purposes. But the ethical questions remain.

02/09/2011

Virtual worlds have grown by leaps and bounds over the past few years, and their applications in expressing political messages and building competitive online-based businesses seem to expand with each new release. But what about scholars at universities and think tanks who hope to use virtual worlds and the social microcosms they create as part of serious academic study?

Pixels and Policy has been skeptical about how some news agencies have looked at virtual worlds as pop-sci "fun fact" generators, but for those willing to invest the time and resources in virtual world research, the Metaverse can yield very interesting and useful data on how people interact, work, and manage a second life in the virtual realm. Pixels and Policy takes a look.

01/13/2011

One of the engines driving the astounding growth of virtual worlds is the innate sense of possibility. Players can be anything, quest anywhere, and rise to the top in combat and charisma.

But is the fantasy role-playing mindset creeping over into our everyday lives? A columnist for St. Louis Today argues that our fascination with virtual environments may be making us into a generation of egotists.

Is the increasingly graphical world of mobile phone technology and Twitter-on-the-go turning us into antisocial monsters, or is it merely shifting the forum for discussion? Are we moving away from a community of ideas, or are we virtualizing it? Let's take a look.

But all is not well in the virtual campaign world. Hopes are running high that candidates in the United Kingdom's upcoming elections will make use of the same kind of game-changing technology that thrust Barack Obama into the White House. But as one major international newspaper reports, the outsized success of virtual political campaigning in the United States may not expand well to countries lacking America's unique electoral system.

The great vault into the future promised by virtual world campaigning and critiqued by this blog back in December may be progressing slower than social media's mavens like to think. Let's take a look.